Peak Religion

[isenhand]

Well, indeed, what is life?

An emergent phenomena resulting from the interactions of various chemicals and the chemical processes. Much like intelligence is a emergent phenomena resulting from the interaction of neurons. Other examples of similar things include Mexican waves and traffic jams.

.ui

[isenhand]

This debate is very interesting, but I can't quite understand this need folk seem to have for hard evidence in order to believe something.

You don?t need hard evidence but you do need some. Science is a method for predicting the most probable. Taken any body of evidence and look for the simplest explanation and that?s your most probable. You then test thing and gain more evidence. If you find evidence that contradicts your first answer you change your mind (not the evidence).

You still need evidence to support a claim. Otherwise you?ll end up be living in anything, and people do!


.ui

[isenhand]

Looking at things from a scientific point of view, I think that mind, life etc. are inexplicable. There is literally nowhere in scientific theories for such things to go. If you look into the brain, you don?t find any mind; if you study brain reactions or mechanisms, they work without any reference to mind. Similarly, from an evolutionary viewpoint, you start with fundamental bits of matter with a few properties (nothing like life or mind) flying around, and there?s no way to explain anything else appearing as time goes by. Where could anything else come from? All it is, is bits of matter moving around.

Try looking at complex system self organising system and multi-agent systems. Society of Mind is a good starting point for seeing how mind occurs out of matter.

.ui

[isenhand]

In what sense do you know these things are not real if you acknowledge there is no way to prove or disprove their existence? You can argue they have a low probability being real because a model of reality that manages to accommodate them seems unnecessarily complicated, but that's not the same as knowing they don't exist.

If something is real it in some way interacts with the real world. In doing so it gives us a way to test it. If there exists no such test then we can class it as not real as we have no way to tell the difference between it and something that does not exist. If we have no way of telling the difference then they are the same; they don?t exist.

.ui

[mikepepler]

Mike, just one question.

If you had been born in Iran, which religion do you suppose you would be following today?

I imagine I'd be Muslim, and living in fear, as I would have no promise from my god that I'd be in heaven after death. But I'm not an expert on Islam, so I won't go any further into that.

I'm just glad I wasn't born in Iran.

[mikepepler]

He tortured poor Job for quite a while, just to win a bet. (Not to mention killing all his family). The Midianites (whose only sin, as far as I could tell from my reading, was that their women were pretty hot), were exterminated (men, women and male children), except for the virgin females, kept as sex slaves by Moses' army.

1 - Job was tortured by Satan, though only within limits set by God. In the end Job's faith held out, the accusation from Satan that he only worshipped God because he was doing well was rebutted, and Job was rewarded with more than he'd lost in the first place. (That's an over-simplification, but I'm not going to paste the whole book in here - you need to go and read it, with some commentary explaining the Israelite culture at the time).
2 - You missed the point that Midian was oppressing Israel:

Judges 6:2-6
Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds. Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys. They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it. Midian so impoverished the Israelites that they cried out to the LORD for help.

Oh, and "Moses and his army" had been dead for 30 years or so by this point.

I could go through all the examples, but don't want to bore people... perhaps you should read up on stuff before making accusations.

As for free will, sin, Adam & Eve, etc.:

God wants us to enter a relationship with Him out of our own free will, not because we were programmed to do it. Therefore people needed to have a real choice, whether to follow God or not. Adam and Eve chose not to, and every human has since. But then we come back to the need for Jesus, because when we take the choice not to follow God we condemn ourselves, and God doesn't want that to be the end of the matter,. So we have another chance - this time to accept forgiveness and return to following God.

If we didn't have the choice to do wrong, we would be unable to do anything but follow God - no free will. Likewise, if God were to force people to believe in Him, there would be no free choice either.

On harm from other causes, the thing to remember is that when humans brought sin into the world, the whole of creation became "tainted", and nothing works the way it would have done. For example, before sin there was no pain in childbirth and no need for farmers to battle weeds to produce food.

One general observation I'd like to make as well: in a discussion like this, why is Christianity the focus, rather than Islam or some other religion? Is it just because we have no Muslims here standing up for their beliefs?

[Aurora]

Mike, just one question.

If you had been born in Iran, which religion do you suppose you would be following today?

I imagine I'd be Muslim, and living in fear, as I would have no promise from my god that I'd be in heaven after death. But I'm not an expert on Islam, so I won't go any further into that.

I'm just glad I wasn't born in Iran.

You obviously agree that your religion is usually determined by your (accidental) place of birth.

Your parents, your school, your church, your peers, all have an effect on your eventual religious outlook.

I find it rather arrogant to suggest that a Muslim, born and brought up in Iran and subjected to all of the same pressures has any less of a chance of entering 'his' idea of heaven.

Christianity is a relatively 'new' religion. If you believe in God, what gives Christianity the right to cast aside any of the alternative 'paths to righteousness'?

It seems to me that a little humility wouldn't go amiss.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=5

[mikepepler]

You obviously agree that your religion is usually determined by your (accidental) place of birth.

Your parents, your school, your church, your peers, all have an effect on your eventual religious outlook.

I think everyone realises that, which is why Christianity, Islam and perhaps others have missionaries.

I find it rather arrogant to suggest that a Muslim, born and brought up in Iran and subjected to all of the same pressures has any less of a chance of entering 'his' idea of heaven.

As far as I'm aware, Muslims believe that they will not know their ultimate destiny until after they die, as Allah has the right to "change his mind" at the last minute, and his decision is final. I could be wrong though, I'm no expert in Islam. But if that is the case, then that's very different from what the Bible tells us, which is that it is possible to be sure of your salvation while still in in this life.

If you believe in God, what gives Christianity the right to cast aside any of the alternative 'paths to righteousness'?

It seems to me that a little humility wouldn't go amiss.

The bible teaches that there's only one way to salvation anyway - through Jesus. I'm simply sticking to what's said there, not making any of my own claims. For me, humility is admitting that I've done wrong and that there is no possible way I can make amends, and that only Jesus can save me. Lack of humility (for me) is the opposite - claiming that I can earn my way into heaven.

An interesting point in all these discussions is when people say "I couldn't believe in a God that does x,y,z,etc.". If there is a God, then He is what He is, and does whatever He does. If God was defined by what people were happy to believe in, then He really would be an invention of humanity. That's why it's the other way round - God is what He is, and revealed His nature through the Bible and through Jesus. We can choose to accept Him or not, and take the consequences. Not believing in Him won't make Him go away. In fact, inventing a God that suits what you're happy to believe in was outlawed in the ten commandments - "graven images" and idols are not just statues, they are anything people put in the place where God should be, whether that's themselves, their own idea of God, consumerism, false religion, etc. Christians are guilty of this too, when they "pick and mix" which bits of the Bible they they accept. If they don't accept the full nature of God as revealed in the bible, then the God they worship is something of their own invention.

[Andy Hunt]

I think there is a lot of confusion surrounding physical suffering and spiritual suffering.

Christianity deals with the spiritual/psychological, and teaches that the physical is transient. So all the physical suffering in the world, whilst very real if it is happening to you, is transient along with the physical body, and only the spiritual is permanent.

In this way it's pretty much the same as say Buddhism, where you have 'Samsara' (worldly suffering) and 'Nirvana' (the realm of the spirit). So you get Buddhists setting fire to themselves in protest, to demonstrate the power of the spirit over the physical body. The crucifixion of Christ is very much in the same spirit (if you will).

The physical world is very brutal, with animals eating other animals, natural disasters, parasitic existences etc - it's just the way of things, and nothing to do with whether God is loving, compassionate etc.

The simple fact that we have life and are aware of it is a miracle in itself, surely. The chances against it are completely astronomical.

[Blue Peter]

The bible teaches that there's only one way to salvation anyway - through Jesus. I'm simply sticking to what's said there, not making any of my own claims. For me, humility is admitting that I've done wrong and that there is no possible way I can make amends, and that only Jesus can save me. Lack of humility (for me) is the opposite - claiming that I can earn my way into heaven.

Shouldn't that, strictly speaking, be through Christ, the second person of the Trinity - or the second mask/persona of God? Since God in all his persons is infinite/eternal, there seems to be no reason why we should simply focus on a particular incarnation, which is necessarily limited in both time and space.

God is available to all; the statement that salvation is only through Christ is simply a fact of the divine economy. The name which we give to God, or any of his persons, is irrelevant, surely,


Peter.

[Aurora]

You obviously agree that your religion is usually determined by your (accidental) place of birth.

Your parents, your school, your church, your peers, all have an effect on your eventual religious outlook.

I think everyone realises that, which is why Christianity, Islam and perhaps others have missionaries.

Why have missionaries (sorry, I meant soldiers in disguise) at all?

What gives any religion or nation the right to foist their values upon another continent.

There is an old saying in Africa - 'When the white man came, he had his bible and we had our land. He asked us to close our eyes and pray with him. When we opened our eyes, we had the bible and he had our land'.

How true. Nothing changes. Even today the West is still exploiting Africa in the name of Christianity.

[Blue Peter]

An emergent phenomena resulting from the interactions of various chemicals and the chemical processes. Much like intelligence is a emergent phenomena resulting from the interaction of neurons. Other examples of similar things include Mexican waves and traffic jams.

.ui

What is emergence?


Peter.

[mikepepler]

God is available to all; the statement that salvation is only through Christ is simply a fact of the divine economy. The name which we give to God, or any of his persons, is irrelevant, surely

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[mikepepler]

Why have missionaries (sorry, I meant soldiers in disguise) at all?

What gives any religion or nation the right to foist their values upon another continent.

There is an old saying in Africa - 'When the white man came, he had his bible and we had our land. He asked us to close our eyes and pray with him. When we opened our eyes, we had the bible and he had our land'.

How true. Nothing changes. Even today the West is still exploiting Africa in the name of Christianity.

As I said in an earlier post:

For me personally, my motivation is that I believe in judgement, heaven and hell, and don't want any of my fellow human beings to suffer the latter, while at the same time recognising that they will have to make their own choice and I can't force them.

This is probably the motivation for many Christians who are missionaries - to help their fellow human beings. A deeper motive may also by that God has instructed them to, through the Bible and/or directly, and they obey Him because they love him.

I wouldn't for a moment condone some of the terrible things that have been (and still are) done in the name of God, but the church is not pure, and has plenty of people in it who are following their own path, not God's. Again, free will, but judgement is still to come.

[Blue Peter]

God is available to all; the statement that salvation is only through Christ is simply a fact of the divine economy. The name which we give to God, or any of his persons, is irrelevant, surely

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Is that for or against my position? The test is who 'I' refers to.

Who is the great "I am"?


Peter.